3 ms·

The expected value is the probability of the event times the value of the event. If the probability is zero, it doesn't matter what the value is, the expected v

The expected value is the probability of the event times the value of the event. If the probability is zero, it doesn't matter what the value is, the expected value is still zero. That you've managed to convince yourself that p > 0 with cryonics is just evidence that snake oil production is a better investment.

edanm 14y ago
So your real argument is, I take it, the the probability of cryonics working is 0? This is different than what I understood before. In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is: 1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased. 2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people. I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating. > I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it. Well, we're simply going to have to disagree. I don't find endorsement by smart people compelling. We have plenty of evidence that medicine can extend lifespans, but we have no evidence that we'll figure out a safe way to revive someone cryogenically frozen and no reason to believe extension will reach infinity. If they only solve one of the two problems you're looking at wasting a lot of money on a very strange burial or a very disappointing revival. If p < 1% but > 0 and it's worth it to you, great. But don't kid yourself about it being an investment. It's a huge gamble. And I retain the right to consider gamblers suckers.
  - edanm 14y ago
    "You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating." That's the nicest thing someone's ever said to me on HN :) "Well, we're simply going to have to disagree." Yes, we will. Not that I've signed up to cryonics or anything yet (still checking how it works from outside the US), but I'm almost convinced that it's worth it. Thanks for another interesting viewpoint on the topic.
venus 14y ago
There is no need to insult everyone's intelligence by asserting that anyone that thinks cryonics has a non-zero chance of success has been fooled by "snake oil". It so happens that quite a few rather smart people believe that cryonics has a non-zero chance of success, so if you have some conclusive evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. Otherwise, your uninformed opinion is just that.

edanm 14y ago

So your real argument is, I take it, the the probability of cryonics working is 0? This is different than what I understood before. In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is: 1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased. 2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people. I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.

fusiongyro 14y ago
You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating. > I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it. Well, we're simply going to have to disagree. I don't find endorsement by smart people compelling. We have plenty of evidence that medicine can extend lifespans, but we have no evidence that we'll figure out a safe way to revive someone cryogenically frozen and no reason to believe extension will reach infinity. If they only solve one of the two problems you're looking at wasting a lot of money on a very strange burial or a very disappointing revival. If p < 1% but > 0 and it's worth it to you, great. But don't kid yourself about it being an investment. It's a huge gamble. And I retain the right to consider gamblers suckers.
- edanm 14y ago
  "You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating." That's the nicest thing someone's ever said to me on HN :) "Well, we're simply going to have to disagree." Yes, we will. Not that I've signed up to cryonics or anything yet (still checking how it works from outside the US), but I'm almost convinced that it's worth it. Thanks for another interesting viewpoint on the topic.

venus 14y ago

There is no need to insult everyone's intelligence by asserting that anyone that thinks cryonics has a non-zero chance of success has been fooled by "snake oil". It so happens that quite a few rather smart people believe that cryonics has a non-zero chance of success, so if you have some conclusive evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. Otherwise, your uninformed opinion is just that.